By now even the most tireless promoters of the idea that Russian “bots” pose some sort of existential threat to Western democracy are no longer so sure.

March 8, 2018

Five-Star party supporters gather for a rally in Piazza del Popolo two days before the March 4 elections in downtown Rome. (Reuters / Tony Gentile)

Ready to fight back?

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back!

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week.

Travel With The Nation

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

On Sunday, Italian voters delivered a shock to Europe not felt since the UK’s Brexit vote in June 2016. Two populist parties came out on top: The NATO- and EU-skeptic Five-Star Movement took home over 32 percent, of the vote while the right-wing Lega party garnered a surprising 17 percent. The fact that both parties have called for better relations with Russia led immediately to the seemingly inevitable accusation that it was the Kremlin, not Italian voters, who was ultimately responsible for the outcome.

Former US ambassador to the UN Samantha Power tweeted: “Italy’s joins long list of elections influenced by Russia…. The question is: what are our democracies going to do about it? Will voters repudiate candidates who seek to benefit from Russian interference?” The UK’s Guardian asked, “Will Putin benefit from Italian populist parties’ Kremlin leanings?” and fretted that the “two populist parties that won big electoral upsets in Italy’s national election have close ideological ties to the Kremlin and could shift foreign policy in Italy in favor of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.”

Similar accusations were unfurled against UKIP in the wake of the Brexit vote and continue to taint the 2016 election of Donald J. Trump in the eyes of many Democrats (and some Republicans).

What we are seeing —in Italy, the UK, and the United States—has the shape of a global populist revolt, but elites are in danger of misidentifying the underlying causes of that revolt as long as they stick to the narrative that these election results were really the work of an outside actor.

There are a few problems with this narrative.

The first problem with blaming Russia, besides the fact that there is no evidence its efforts had any tangible affect on the outcome of these votes, is that doing so denies agency to voters. It also shows a disrespect for the plight of the vast numbers of people who have been immiserated by decades of neoliberal austerity policies. Are we really to believe Russian Twitter “bots,” Facebook ads, and RT factored in more than the rates of unemployment (Italy has a rate of 38 percent youth unemployment) and poverty as the main factors behind Brexit and the US and Italian elections?

By now even the most tireless promoters of the idea that Russian “bots” pose some sort of existential threat to Western democracy are no longer so sure.

Current Issue

Hamilton 68 co-founder Clint Watts recently admitted that he is no longer “convinced on this bot thing,” telling BuzzFeed he believes the narrative is “overdone.” Watts isn’t alone in having a bit of a rethink. This week, Mark Galeotti, a senior research fellow at the Institute of International Affairs Prague, admitted that the so-called “Gerasimov Doctrine” that countlesspundits have cited as evidence of a Russian plan to undermine the West does not exist. “I feel I can say that because,” wrote Galeotti, “to my immense chagrin, I created this term, which has since acquired a destructive life of its own, lumbering clumsily into the world to spread fear and loathing in its wake.”

Blaming domestic turmoil on a foreign adversary also serves as a useful and welcome diversion on the part of neoliberal elites against whose policies voters are at long last rebelling. It lets them off the hook for letting Wall Street off the hook in 2008 and likewise allows European leaders to deflect from their failure to protect their working and middle classes from the depredations of German-imposed austerity.

It allows these elites to avoid a reconsideration of their own failed economic policies. Taking no blame, they instead simply blame Russia, all the while offering voters no alternative to the global system of casino finance, free trade, and unrestricted capital movement.

The uncomfortable truth is that by blaming Russia for the current groundswell in populist anger, European and American elites willfully ignore causes which lay closer to home.

"The fact that both parties have called for better relations with Russia led immediately to the seemingly inevitable accusation that it was the Kremlin, not Italian voters, who was ultimately responsible for the outcome."
Yes of course. It can't be because are afraid. It can't be because the West in general and the US in particular are pushing for war with Russia. It can't be people voting for parties and presidents who swear to de-escalate conflict with Russia. No. It's Russian interference.

(1)(0)

Clark M Shanahansays:

March 13, 2018 at 11:01 am

The hypocrisy is audacious.
Without Clinton and Dubya pushing Nato up to Russia and Obama planting Reagan's missile-shield in Romania,
the Russian nativists wouldn't be holding half their power.
Our Dr Strangeloves never wanted Russia to develop into a "healthy" liberal democracy.
Notice how Barack bravely took the baton from Ronnie.
Belated, yes, but we're back on track!

(1)(0)

Clark M Shanahansays:

March 13, 2018 at 10:14 am

It is likely Russia does help enable the European Right;
especially after the US inspired Coup in Ukraine.
There have been US monies supporting European nativists, also.
Especially after 9/11. Sheldon Adelson is one:

Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz have also done their part against Europe's "invasion" by muslims..
The Rabbi of Ukraine has touted the fascist Pravy Sektor as natural allies.
This is quite informative:

Mr Dillon,
From 1975 to 1995, living in France, I witnessed the rise of the National Front.
Observations:
1) throughout the world it is a safe supposition that there is a base 5% of simplistic nativists
2) up until the end of the post wwII economic boom things were generally fine with the immigrant labor forces in both France and Germany; though it should be noted that neither of the two govs worked at any serious assimilation practices..(and it does require two to tango)
3) in the very late Eighties in France and in Germany, Oct 1990 at the unification of East & West Germany, unemployment became a problem. After years of Kurds in W Germany and North Africans in France doing the work the "natives" didn't want to do, political leaders of the Right in both countries started pointing their fingers at the migrant workers. In France, the National Front, getting its first real election results, was bolstered by many cross-over communists seeing their once stable jobs fritter away. In Germany the Right was fed by the ex-workers of the now collapsed East German economy.
As Clinton said: "it's the economy, stupid".
I don't know where you were informed, but your talk of "millions" of Muslim Refugees insulting the good and gentle native populations is pure Right-Wing Claptrap. Merkel and the Nordic countries are the only ones who recognized the mainly US written Geneva Conventions and have taken in serious numbers of refugees. Italy has been stuck with many due to their location on the Mediterranean and their government really hasn't stepped up to bat.
They can thank the Brits, French, and Americans, along with all the ex Soviet Satellites in the EU for shirking their responsibilities.
Your efforts to understand this situation are clearly lacking and I suspect perhaps you are part of those 5% of xenophobic nativists that have been around for centuries.

Ironically, studies show that the far-Right parties are strongest where you find the fewest refugees.
Go Figure.........

(1)(0)

Michael Robertsonsays:

March 12, 2018 at 12:04 pm

The neoliberals have been outed, and all they've got is blaming Russia. It makes them look even more foolish. This interview with Stephen Kinzer on Democracy Now puts some perspective on the Russiagate obsession.
https://www.democracynow.org/2018/3/12/as_ex_cia_head_admits_to?autostart=true
For a good overview on US imperialism and meddling in other country's elections, linking to part 1 of this interview is worthwhile.

(1)(0)

David Gurariesays:

March 11, 2018 at 11:13 pm

In response to Craig Dillon
The penchant of slapping labels ("four legs- good, two legs -bad") "progressivism" vs. "populism" vs. "socialism", is misleading and misguided. Whatever adjective one wishes to slap on Trump or Sanders, one clearly sees stark contrast between "faux populist ogre" and the "populist democrat". In the same way "Five-star" and "Lega" are miles apart, despite their "love of Putin" and mistrust of neoliberal EU

(2)(0)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

March 9, 2018 at 6:53 pm

Our Kakocracy of "Leaders", whose hands currently grasp every lever of power throughout what we call "the Western world", is systematically unable to move beyond economic chaos and perpetual war.

The imbecilic hubris that blames social media "bots", and "fake news" platforms, for our unresponsive and clueless political systems is a damning confirmation of the reality of a planet ruled by an astonishingly unaccountable and failed "Ruling Class".

(9)(2)

Michael Robertsonsays:

March 12, 2018 at 12:05 pm

Yes.

(0)(0)

Craig Dillonsays:

March 9, 2018 at 1:50 am

I think the anger in Europe comes from the leaders not listening or informing their citizens. For instance, the immigration and refugee issue. The citizenry was never consulted to see if they wanted to take in millions of Muslim refugees. They did not inform them that these refugees would become permanent immigrants. The governments did not seem to give any thought of how millions of Muslims who denigrate and hate non-Muslims would affect their societies.
It seems to me that the anger in Europe is coming from the fact that their leaders have been blind, deaf, and dumb to the concerns of the citizens.
Wouldn't that piss you off a bit, too??

(6)(5)

Craig Dillonsays:

March 9, 2018 at 1:45 am

The US and Europe are different. For instance, Socialism & Progressivism are often confused because to many, they seem the same. They aren't.
Progressivism comes from small town democracies in New England, New York, and Pennsylvania. These small towns believed in education, parks, libraries, and taking care of their poor. These impulses came from their interpretation of Christianity. Progressivism has NOTHING to do with what happened in Europe in the 1800's.
Meanwhile, Socialism and Communism go back hundreds of years. Marx just tried to put those old ideas into an industrial society and country. (Not very successfully, I might add.) However, even there, Christianity was the inspiration for communal living (hence, communism). From Europe, we did get many communal religious groups, like the Shakers, the Quakers, the Amish, and the Mennonites. I guess the Puritans could also be described as one of these groups.
On second thought, I guess there is a connection between Progressivism and Socialism, the connection just goes back a lot farther than people think.
At any rate, for me, they are different. Each stand alone, and do not require reference to the other for validation. The way we use the principles of Progressive government to rule ourselves, will likely be different from what Europe does. And that is OK

(1)(2)

Craig Dillonsays:

March 9, 2018 at 1:32 am

Whoa, wait a minute. Populism IS NOT Progressivism. Populism is just about a demagogic politician, like Trump, saying whatever is popular to get elected.
Progressivism has given us statesmen like FDR, Truman, and Kennedy. Progressivism is NOT about what is easy and popular. For instance, Progressives, after WW2, raised taxes to pay for the war. That is why we did not have a bout of inflation, like we had after the Vietnam War. Progressives gave us Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA (yes, Nixon was a Progressive), and Obamacare (yes, it is flawed). And yes, Progressives also gave us the taxes that go with supporting these programs. But, would you want to do away with any of those programs to save a few bucks in your taxes???
Progressives believe in good responsible government, that has transparency so that we, the people, can control it.
Populists just go for what sounds nice and easy. They support demagogues, not statesmen.
They support Trump, not Sanders.